[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100726163108.GE26412@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:31:08 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dmitri Vorobiev <dmitri.vorobiev@...ial.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH UPDATED 1/3] vhost: replace vhost_workqueue with
per-vhost kthread
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 06:14:30PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Just one more thing.
>
> On 07/26/2010 06:05 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > * Placing try_to_freeze() could be a bit annoying. It shouldn't be
> > executed when there's a work to flush.
BTW why is this important?
We could always get another work and flush right after
try_to_freeze, and then flush would block for a long time.
BTW the vhost patch you sent does not do this at all.
I am guessing it is because our thread is not freezable?
> * Similar issue exists for kthread_stop(). The kthread shouldn't exit
> while there's a work to flush (please note that kthread_worker
> interface allows detaching / attaching worker kthread during
> operation, so it should remain in consistent state with regard to
> flushing).
>
> Thanks.
Not sure I agree here. Users must synchronise flush and stop calls.
Otherwise a work might get queued after stop is called, and
you won't be able to flush it.
> --
> tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists